From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Kuzminsky Subject: bug in my understanding (was Re: bug in tcp?) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:45:34 -0600 Message-ID: References: <462450C5.5080702@snapgear.com> <46246572.9020108@snapgear.com> To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net ([63.240.77.85]:46466 "EHLO sccrmhc15.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161326AbXDWSpl (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:45:41 -0400 Received: from seb (helo=highlab.com) by highlab.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hg3Xa-0003gF-Vk for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:45:35 -0600 In-reply-to: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote: > Philip Craig wrote: > > Change the timeout or use keepalives. I can't think of any other way. > > The 5 days is a compromise between keeping valid connections and > > timing out dead connections. There will always be connections for > > which it times out too fast or too slow. I don't think there are > > any drawbacks to increasing the timeout if you aren't a router, > > but as long as there is a timeout, you need keepalives to be sure. > > Thanks! I'll add keepalives and rerun the tests, and I expect the > problem to go away. I reran the tests with keepalive enabled and it worked just fine. Thanks for all your help, and sorry for the false alarm! -- Sebastian Kuzminsky